There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

How does one's "cooperation" result in one being labeled (by man, never mind by anything else): "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediatrix?" Sounds like a rather huge logical fallacy....

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

Oh dear.

Why? You recalling all those hymns you sing about her being just a plain jane, ordinary kinda gal?

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood.

That's like saying it is not murder when properly excused.

It is a heresy. Many in the Vatican's following-including your supreme pontiff I am told-condemn it. But I have no doubt, that like the IC, its partisans are not going to give up, and will push until the Vatican makes it dogma, like the IC.

Quote

The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have.

Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.

Quote

She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate.

Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.

Quote

It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart.

It is blasphemous to put her in God's league. "Behold! the handmaiden of the Lord." Not "the colleague." As your Saint Bernart said, only one conception was sinless.

Quote

She housed the One who would bring us salvation.

Which means we do not need to invent heresies to honor her.

Quote

That hardly makes her ordinary.

That hardly gives a reason to overreact and exceed proper bounds.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There is a growing movement of people in the Catholic Church who believe that the Virgin Mary must be proclaimed as "Co-Redeemer" and "Co-Mediator", and that this is the "fifth and final Marian Dogma", and once the Pope proclaims it, everything will be just peachy keen in the world:http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

Of course if such a dogma were defined it would not put the Blessed Virgin Mary as equal to Christ. That is not the meaning of "co-" in this instance, but rather it means that she cooperated with God in a special way. If such a dogma were defined it would no doubt ruffle some feathers because there would be people who would misunderstand it.

and others who would understand it and condemn it for the heresy it is.

It is not heretical when properly understood. The Mother of God had the special and most important role anyone could have. She was the chosen vessel to house God Incarnate. It would be blasphemous to say she was just an ordinary sinful person and was not set apart. She housed the One who would bring us salvation. That hardly makes her ordinary.

Oh dear.

Why? You recalling all those hymns you sing about her being just a plain jane, ordinary kinda gal?

maybe all those apparitions you all put so much stock in, which characterize her as a goddess of wrath.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Yes, it seems they don't say what they mean, and don't mean what they say.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Yes, it seems they don't say what they mean, and don't mean what they say.

Heaven forbid if we try to figure out what the actual belief is! We get accused of being ignorant or worse alterior motives and purposefully lying. I don't why it must be so confusing and why Rome can't just give the skinny once and for all.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Yes, and I think this same rationale (that Christ's body/blood being Mary's) leads to the belief that she is also present in the eucharist. Oddly enough though, I have to admit it makes sense on the surface, but only when one considers Christ's body and blood to consist solely of carnal elements, which of course it does not. To counter this, I have also heard the opinion expressed somewhere that when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the divinity of Christ permeated her body as well, and her body and blood did not remain solely human thereafter.

Is that last statement an actual teaching of the Catholics? That sounds odd to me also.

As it rightly should. That sounds terribly heretical to me.

I'm not so sure Miravalle would agree. What I described sounds suspiciously familiar to the "quasi-incarnation" described above by Isa.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Well to be fair, we have to come up with our share of similar explanations...

"When we say "most holy Theotokos save us", what we really mean is..."When we say, "Theotokos, turn not thy servants away with empty hands, for thee alone do we have as our only hope." what we really mean is...

In fairness to our RC brethern, we should recognize that they are caught in a logic trap, even though it is a trap of their own making. The trap is a simply one: they cannot admit to being wrong since that would destroy the Papacy (not the Church mind you but the institution of Papacy). So, they are forever twisting in the wind, explaining away instead of repudiating wrong, heretical, undeeded, and undesired dogmas. Ever since Vatican II, they have been glossing over the more obviously wrong aspects of their heresies--just like Ozgeorge pointed out. I think that instead of getting mad at their stance, we should pray that they will be able to transition to a clearer understanding of the error of their ways and resign themselves to the fact that the demise of the Papacy is an absolute requirement for all of us to go forward in the fullness of faith.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

I think I could come up with a similar list for the Orthodox, though I don't think you'd agree with my list...

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

I think I could come up with a similar list for the Orthodox, though I don't think you'd agree with my list...

Agreement isn't the issue. consistentsy is.

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.

The Vassula promoters I know in the Armenian community will talk nonstop about how the Catholic Church is the true Church, the Catholic Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" (whatever that is supposed to be), etc. They do everything they can to get their fellow Armenians to start attending Catholic masses and take communion there. They do what they can to get other Armenians to venerate Catholic saints and say the rosary, instead of prayers from the Armenian Church.

However, Pope Benedict won't endorse Vassula or her movement, and in fact has warned people to stay away from Vassula. So these people are involved in a movement whose goal is to bring people under a Pope who rejects them. I just thought that was irony. But again, I may not understand what irony is.

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......""When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......""When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......""When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......""When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......""When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......""When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......""When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......""When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"

This can be played all day.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

"When we say "Mother of God", what we really mean is......""When we say "Ecumenical Patriarch", what we really mean is......""When we say "worship icons", what we really mean is......""When we say "God is One", what we really mean is......""When we say "God is Three", what we really mean is......""When we say "Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady", what we really mean is......""When we say "Homoouisios", what we really mean is......""When we say "First Bishop", what we really mean is......""When we say "Prayer to Saints", what we really mean is......"

This can be played all day.

Sorry but most of these examples look like pure fail even from this ignoramus.

They don't at all track with what OZ was getting at, or whoever started the list of RCC rational mysteries.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.

We would have to have an example then.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's ironic that even though Vassula Ryden is a former Greek Orthodox, her bizarre beliefs are being used in this thread as yet another stick to beat the Roman Catholics with.

I don't think that Vassula really represents either the Greeks or the Catholics.

The irony, actually, is that although she and her followers are big on getting Orthodox Christians to "unite" with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Pope won't have anything to do with her. It just doesn't make sense to me that people still follow her.

That's not irony.

It could be I don't understand irony.

You understand it quite well.

This is irony.

It is ALSO sarcasm (a subset of irony) and stupid on my part. Forgive me for my offense if any were taken.

Just wiki irony. A pet peeve of mine that people just use "irony" to mean any number of things.

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."

There is no example above.

I don't think the point is that aspects of Orthodoxy require some filling out, but rather some very basic dogmas of the RCC while rational and absolutely sensible according the apologists here require an enormous amount of explanation, which evidently only a few experts can sufficiently answer.

To use a word to describe work I did in a former life, some of their basic dogmas are simply inelegant, if not unintelligible. And mind you, the RCC insists these dogmas are in fact intelligible.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

And when we say "Holy Theotokos, save us!" we mean it the same way a drowing person would say to someone on deck "save me!" (I recently was in the middle of the ocean for the first time).

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Theotokos thing (which I agree with you about), but I still think the same thing that you are saying Catholics do is also done by Orthodox. And I think it's done regarding the Bible, Tradition, and a number of other things, so we're not talking about peanuts here.

We would have to have an example then.

I still think the Theotokos example you explained is similar. Orthodox are forced to explain why two identical words are used to represent two different understandings of the same word. Without explanations, such as the one you gave, it could imply a false teaching.

That said, I think OzGeorge's examples and observation of a trend seems quite accurate.

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Is it just me or is there a definite pattern?:"When we say "and the Son", what we really mean is.......""When we say "infallible", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Immaculate Conception", what we really mean is.......""When we say "Co-Redeemer", what we really mean is......."

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If I understand George's point, it was that Catholics say one thing, when in reality they should have to give all sorts of explanations about why the original statement isn't as simple as it might have sounded. I think the Orthodox do the same thing, for example with the status of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, which theologians disagree about. It seems obvious to me that these differences exist from comparing different sources, but of the several books specifically about the Scripture that I've read by Orthodox writers, only one book (Scripture and Tradition by Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) try to grapple with the issue head on. Though some other people, like Met. Kallistos, sort of skirt around the issue, saying things like "most theologians think X..."

No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says. We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says. We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Well if that was his point, then I disagree with him even more than I realised I don't think they are engaged in double-talk, I think they are admirably trying to struggle with things that are difficult to conceive of, let alone put into words.

No, I think George's point is that when we take the Vatican at its word on the above, its supporters come up with all sorts of explanations about why it doesn't mean what its says. We don't say they should give all sorts of explanations, as we have no need of them. They should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Well if that was his point, then I disagree with him even more than I realised I don't think they are engaged in double-talk, I think they are admirably trying to struggle with things that are difficult to conceive of, let alone put into words.

LOL. It doesn't help that they are incorrect, things that never happened, offices that do not exist, charims that are not given, mysteries not revealed....

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth